 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
toubab1020
12241 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Jan 2013 : 20:11:34
|
Was Sulayman Frazer present when the accident occoured ? if not how can he be responsible for any action by the driver Bubacarr Jadama ? or if he was in the car merely being driven,unless it can be proved that he ordered his driver to take some course of action that resulted in the driver having the accident then all Mr Sulayman Frazer is MAYBE a witness.The newspaper is a little lacking in reporting the FULL facts that were found out at the hearing for careless driving in which Mr Bubacarr Jadama apparently pleaded guilty and was fined D1000.
"Momodou A. Jeng of Pipeline, who was driving the vehicle with registration number KM 1483B, and Bubacarr Jadama who was driving a vehicle with registration number BJL 3709H, who was under the duty and service of the second defendant as a his driver."
http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/amigo-jeng-seeks-court-redress
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 03:05:29
|
Toubab, it is called vicarious liability. Mr jadama was employed by and in this service of Mr Fraser. The law recognises that in most cases, the employee is not worth suing. Meanwhile, the victim can't be left uncompensated. It is for this reason that most employers in UK take out insurance to cover themselves.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
 |
|
|
toubab1020
12241 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 15:13:17
|
OK,so it's all about getting money from somebody if you employ a person who does something "wrong" even if you have no control over that which was done?.I take it that Bubacarr Jadama was INSURED otherwise he would have been charged with No Insurance when he appeared in court for careless driving and was convicted of that offence therefore I would assume that the insurance company would be responsible for covering any payment to Mr.Momodou Amigo Jeng,or am I wrong?
Taken to a much higher level,would insurance for "vicarious liability" be paid out to the relatives of a man who was murdered by one of your employees? You obviously know your stuff Nyarikangbanna,I shall be very interested in your next posting,it is connected with the topic title so we should still be "on topic" 
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
Toubab, it is called vicarious liability. Mr jadama was employed by and in this service of Mr Fraser. The law recognises that in most cases, the employee is not worth suing. Meanwhile, the victim can't be left uncompensated. It is for this reason that most employers in UK take out insurance to cover themselves.
Thanks
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 15 Jan 2013 17:02:29 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 17:12:51
|
No, it's not about money. It is about being fair; it is about duty of care which also entails reasonably forseeing harm being caused to others in the conduct of your business and doing something about it.
I am not going to comment on the ongoing Amingo Jeng case as the matter is still in court but putting things in plain english for you; if Mr. A employs Mr. B to do a certain job for him in the conduct of his business, Mr. A is under a duty of care to ensure that Mr. B, in the exercise of his duties, do not cause harm both to himself and to others. In other words, Mr. A, the employer, has a duty of care not to cause harm, directly or indirectly, to his employees,customers, members of his local community etc etc. This may sound utterly indeterminate a risk to take but it is not. It is only about harms that he (the employer) can reasonable forsee or ought to have forsaw. That is why risk assessment is imperative to many employers.
What can Mr. A do after forseeing harm?
Well onece the employer forsaw harm or a risk of harm being caused, he is duty bound to put in place measures (including staff training) and procedures that would either prevent harm being caused or mitigate the risk of harm being caused. The employee is then under a duty of fedility to ensure that such measures and procedures are not only preserved but followed.
If the employee chooses not to follow procedure and end up causing harm to himself or to other, he has broken the chain of causation from the employer's end and he shall be solely liable.
If on the other hand, the employee has followed procedure but only partly, liability may be severed between the two (the employee and the employer) depending on the circumstance and their individual levels of contribution. In some case, non-complaince with procedure is a culture that the employer has chosen to ignore for a long time and at his owm peril.
What about if the risk is not preventable?
Well if the risk is not preventable, that still doesn't help the employer as it was his decision to operate in that environment in full view of the attendant forseable risks and making money out of it. His duty is however only limited to mitigating such risk by constantly monitoring the situation, updating safety measures including staff training and taking out insurance cover potential liabilities.
If the employers put all or most of measures in place and yet disaster strikes notwithstanding, that would be a favourable consideration to his advantage when the level of compensation(s) to be paid out is being decided but more importantly, the court would look for contributory negligence on the part of the victim(s) and if found, it would reduce the level of compensation(s) according to their level of contribtion to their own injury or damage and sometimes, this could mean zero compensation for the victims. So the law is very well balanced.
I am sure this will satisfy your curosity, Toubab.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 15 Jan 2013 20:21:08 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12241 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 20:26:16
|
| Thanks Nyarikangbanna,reasonably clear for legalese,you would make (or are ) a good pupil master and even more worthy having gained the BIG HAND ACCOLADE |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2013 : 21:45:10
|
Toubab, please resend ur private mail.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12241 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2013 : 23:56:08
|
It wasn't really private Nyarikangbanna ,I have deleted it anyway, all it was was a law report that contained a SIMILAR case about vicarious-liability in England that I thought other members may find boring  .I looked through my history and found the page I sent in My PM as I researched vicarious liability, anyway I won't waste bandwith (opps... Admin  ) by cut and pasting it all,if anyone is interested in vicarious liability cases here is the link below:
http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/cases/vicarious-liability-cases.php |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 17 Jan 2013 00:00:47 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
